Aside from anything else (and despite the title of one of the greatest albums in history), the moon does NOT have a "dark side" (or, at least, it doesn't have a "side" that's perennially dark - any more than the Earth does. If it did, we wouldn't see lunar phases from the Earth.)
(Sorry to be pedantic, but hearing it called the dark side is like nails on a blackboard to me).
Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.
I think it says a lot about dubya and the population that elected him ; I don't think it says much about the document itself (although Shitehouse sources claim that "it's soft, strong and very very long")
if the search was as invasive as has been suggested, then there was certainly intent. (I'd imagine it's quite hard to digitally violate someone in an airport queue "unintentionally")
I suspect the truth is that we don't have anything like enough information to know if looking close to Sol is skewing results. On the one hand, it may be that some regions of space are particularly friendly to planet formation (in which case a local search might reveal more planets than is typical - our system being a consequence of that planet-friendliness). On the other hand, it may be that the distribution is relatively uniform (in which case, a local search might reveal fewer planets than is typical - since our presence 'uses up' some of the local quota)
Of course, we’ve yet to discover a system with as many planets as Sol - but that's likely to be due (at least in part) to the difficulty in detecting low mass bodies at interstellar distances. (after all, we only discovered Pluto in the 1930s, and Eris in 2005 - and by comparison, those are on our doorstep)
Thought experiment: if we were to look at a hypothetical twin of the Sol system located (say) a couple of hundred light years away, how many of those planets would we be able to detect with our current technology? (I have no idea what the answer is - but I'd be fascinated to find out)
Developers of add ons are under NO obligation to update that software. None whatsoever.
Developers who stop updating their software will find that their software becomes obsolete.
And, in many cases, the developer won't care (one of the many reasons people stop working on software is they've lost interest in the project) - but that doesn't mean that their *users* don't care. And it's the *users* that will get hit hardest by FireFoxes approach here. If there's an addon that you've been using for ages that does what you want it to do, then it shouldn't matter that the original developer is no longer updating it (and here, by "updating" we're not actually talking about writing code - we're talking about editing a config file.)
It seems to me that the FireFox developers who have made this particular decree are intent on driving their user base away for no particularly good reason, just stubborn adherence to dogma. I've yet to see anything approaching a coherent argument against version numbers - just "they're bad, and we want to get rid of them."
Paying someone to read to you for an hour a day doesn't produce a tangible product either.
That rather depends on what you have them read; pick the right text and you may learn something. (or, even better, do what I did and learn how to read for yourself)
Slashdot Mirror
pass over the far/dark side.
You mean the far side.
Aside from anything else (and despite the title of one of the greatest albums in history), the moon does NOT have a "dark side" (or, at least, it doesn't have a "side" that's perennially dark - any more than the Earth does. If it did, we wouldn't see lunar phases from the Earth.)
(Sorry to be pedantic, but hearing it called the dark side is like nails on a blackboard to me).
Just goes to show, no good dead goes unpunished.
Zombie joke?
Can't speak for GP's intent - but in my experience it's a fundamental law of physics.
+1 ROTFLMAO!
Yes, but this is post-Taco /., so I doubt you're the only one.
The truth?
Dubya said that the constitution is "just a piece of paper", I think that says it all.
I think it says a lot about dubya and the population that elected him ; I don't think it says much about the document itself (although Shitehouse sources claim that "it's soft, strong and very very long")
I've gotten so tired of our homotextual replies.
Just wait until the metrotextuals get started...
Rape requires intention
if the search was as invasive as has been suggested, then there was certainly intent. (I'd imagine it's quite hard to digitally violate someone in an airport queue "unintentionally")
That word - I do not think it means what you think it means...
+1 insightful (if I had points)
I suspect the truth is that we don't have anything like enough information to know if looking close to Sol is skewing results. On the one hand, it may be that some regions of space are particularly friendly to planet formation (in which case a local search might reveal more planets than is typical - our system being a consequence of that planet-friendliness). On the other hand, it may be that the distribution is relatively uniform (in which case, a local search might reveal fewer planets than is typical - since our presence 'uses up' some of the local quota)
Of course, we’ve yet to discover a system with as many planets as Sol - but that's likely to be due (at least in part) to the difficulty in detecting low mass bodies at interstellar distances. (after all, we only discovered Pluto in the 1930s, and Eris in 2005 - and by comparison, those are on our doorstep)
Thought experiment: if we were to look at a hypothetical twin of the Sol system located (say) a couple of hundred light years away, how many of those planets would we be able to detect with our current technology? (I have no idea what the answer is - but I'd be fascinated to find out)
The meek shall inherit the Earth - the rest of us are going to the stars.
...or even more worser, the spel chequers...
Or, more likely, "I like lying"...
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Are you sure it's not down to inferior spelling?
So is brainfuck.
Which is still a better option than VBA...
Non-sequiturs seem to be rife when religious people talk.
FTFY...
I suspect you'll find that the OP meant ".Net is available only to people using MSVC++ (as opposed to other C++ compilers)".
Quite frankly, memory management is not hard.
Indeed - it's no harder than borrowing a book from a library; you ask for some memory, and when you've finished with it, you give it back.
huge amounts of radiation are blowing across the USA from the west, too many people could detect such a thing (including me)
Tinfoil underpants may well protect you from detecting it.
There are no companies (users in Facebook speak) actively mining your content on Google+.
With one obvious exception ...
Developers of add ons are under NO obligation to update that software. None whatsoever.
Developers who stop updating their software will find that their software becomes obsolete.
And, in many cases, the developer won't care (one of the many reasons people stop working on software is they've lost interest in the project) - but that doesn't mean that their *users* don't care. And it's the *users* that will get hit hardest by FireFoxes approach here. If there's an addon that you've been using for ages that does what you want it to do, then it shouldn't matter that the original developer is no longer updating it (and here, by "updating" we're not actually talking about writing code - we're talking about editing a config file.)
It seems to me that the FireFox developers who have made this particular decree are intent on driving their user base away for no particularly good reason, just stubborn adherence to dogma. I've yet to see anything approaching a coherent argument against version numbers - just "they're bad, and we want to get rid of them."
Paying someone to read to you for an hour a day doesn't produce a tangible product either.
That rather depends on what you have them read; pick the right text and you may learn something. (or, even better, do what I did and learn how to read for yourself)
Shot by a stalker.
I guess you're one of those people that enjoys pointing out that a thousand foot fall won't hurt - but the landing may be a little traumatic?
I'm guessing you'll find this on the "about:screwthe(l)user" page (it's a UX improvement, you see)
...or they very cleverly demonstrated just what a dumb idea this is...